Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's the deal though - people from all walks of life and religion describe "a genuine encounter with God" and I am not going to judge that - I'm busy enough making sure I'M right with God if that makes sense.
I mean, I will use my judgment to determine my interactions with other people, but thankfully I'm not in charge of their immortal soul. All I'm in charge of is how I behave and believe.
Precisely! Who is to say that someone else's "genuine encounter with God" was legitimate or not? And for someone who claims to have had such an encounter to belittle someone else's is, frankly, inexcusable.
Precisely! Who is to say that someone else's "genuine encounter with God" was legitimate or not? And for someone who claims to have had such an encounter to belittle someone else's is, frankly, inexcusable.
The only one who can tell is the individual who receives the encounter! That is the only opinion that matters.
I always liked the Eastern Orthodox response to experiences of God . I made mention once to an EO about signs God was working outside the EO . Did not bother them one bit . The response was “ God can do whatever He wants . We don’t know what God may be doing outside the EO Church. All we know is that we are the Church of Christ established by the Apostles . That’s it. If God chooses to do other things outside the Christian framework that His business, and not our business to tell Him He can’t do that “.
You can disagree with their view that they are the only legit Church of Christ, but they put no limits on God and others experiences with God .
I always liked the Eastern Orthodox response to experiences of God . I made mention once to an EO about signs God was working outside the EO . Did not bother them one bit . The response was “ God can do whatever He wants . We don’t know what God may be doing outside the EO Church. All we know is that we are the Church of Christ established by the Apostles . That’s it. If God chooses to do other things outside the Christian framework that His business, and not our business to tell Him He can’t do that “.
You can disagree with their view that they are the only legit Church of Christ, but they put no limits on God and others experiences with God .
I always liked the Eastern Orthodox response to experiences of God . I made mention once to an EO about signs God was working outside the EO . Did not bother them one bit . The response was “ God can do whatever He wants . We don’t know what God may be doing outside the EO Church. All we know is that we are the Church of Christ established by the Apostles . That’s it. If God chooses to do other things outside the Christian framework that His business, and not our business to tell Him He can’t do that “.
You can disagree with their view that they are the only legit Church of Christ, but they put no limits on God and others experiences with God .
To address the OP more directly, as my previous post was more about individuals having faith outside of the Christian framework, his conclusions that anyone who loses their faith never really had it to begin with are faulty. Preachers and pastors who make religion their main reason for existing, and some who even risked their very lives for Christianity, have renounced it. Take Dan Barker. He was a pastor for decades , and even went into foreign countries to preach the Gospel. But he eventually gave it up. There are articles now asking why so many preachers are leaving the faith. Preachers , the established leaders of the faith. If you are going to insist the leaders of the faith werent ever really Christian if they leave it, then where does that lead? We arent talking the 4 times a year back row Christians, but the trained, educated, sincere leaders of other Christians. Where is the logical basis for claiming they never really understood or believed properly?
Just as an related aside, I found this comment in one of the articles lamenting the exits of religious leaders from the faith. It is one of the 3 strategies the Christian writer says he was taught by his spiritual fathers to avoid having doubts and succumbing to them ( which tells us this problem of people leaving the faith is widespread, that they have developed and teach strategies to prevent this). The first one really says it all.
1. I've been taught to Keep a closed mind.
Open-mindedness is celebrated as an enlightened virtue, one that should be embraced at all times towards all things. Yes, there are a multitude of things that I do not know, and I am very much open to learning. I love the art of discovery, as all God's children should.
However, sooner or later, your path of discovery has to lead you to a place of decision.
I have personally tasted and seen that the Lord is good. I have encountered His presence and can now testify of that which I have seen with my eyes and heard with my ears. I have no doubt. My faith is set. My mind is made up.
Steve Hill has reminded me several times that Jesus was the most closed-minded individual to ever walk the earth. It's true. There was no persuading Jesus and no debating with Him. His mind was firmly set upon the truth, and He was unwavering.
This resolute determination changed the world. He encouraged the same in His disciples.
In other words, don't think too closely about it. Ignore anything that contradicts your beliefs. Keep your mind closed to anything that disputes this belief. Irkle actually says something similar when criticizing a forum atheist who left Christianity. I will see if I can find it and add it.
I'm on my cellphone and trying to quote posts is difficult, but I will make these points in response to some of what has been said:
1. I am a Christian. This is the Christianity forum. I believe a genuine encounter with God is with the God of Christianity. I believe it leads to a Bible-based faith that is at least within the ballpark of the Christian mainstream, be it Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant. The encounter with God that I am talking about as "the Christian essential" is a call by God that results in a conversion experience and brings the individual into the body of Christ.
If the ostensible encounter with God doesn't match the model I have described in the preceding paragraph, then no, I don't believe it was a genuine encounter with God. This is true even if it was ostensibly Christian. There is a reason the Bible warns against Satan masquerading as an angel of light.
Do I believe supernatural encounters in other religions are genuine encounters with God? Not unless they are Christian conversion experiences as Muslims (for example) are reporting with increasing frequency. God can certainly call someone in another religion just as he can call an atheist.
2. The comment about someone who had a genuine encounter later losing faith misses what I said by 180 degrees. As I stated in my original post, being neck-deep in the beliefs, traditions and practices of Christianity - even to the extent of serving as a pastor - is no guarantee of anything, and certainly not of the reality of the individual's conversion experience. In Calvinistic terms, the Perseverance of the elect is assured - that's the P in TULIP. When someone who was once neck-deep in Christianity falls away, then he either never had a genuine encounter with God or will one day return to the fold, regardless of what he now thinks.
This was really the central point of my original post. The genuine encounter with God is the one true Christian essential. If you don't have that, all the rest of your ostensible Christianity is a charade.
3. You simply can't claim that a genuine encounter with God produced beliefs that are antithetical to Christianity. The source document of Christianity is the Bible. The Jesus of Christianity is the Jesus of the Gospels. The Gospel message and the core Christian doctrines have been understood by Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants for 2000 years. If your Christianity is markedly different from what Christianity has always been understood to be, then your encounter was not with God - simple as that.
As I've said elsewhere, I find it extremely telling that the direction in which unorthodox Christianities err is always - always, always, always - one that appeals to fallen human nature and robs the Gospel of its saving power. They are always - always, always, always - the sorts of superficially appealing counterfeits we might expect Satan to generate if he were hell-bent to deceive as many people as possible into unwittingly following false and ineffectual "Christianities."
Last edited by Irkle Berserkle; 10-30-2021 at 02:04 PM..
I'm on my cellphone and trying to quote posts is difficult, but I will make these points in response to some of what has been said:
1. I am a Christian. This is the Christianity forum. I believe a genuine encounter with God is with the God of Christianity. I believe it leads to a Bible-based faith that is at least within the ballpark of the Christian mainstream, be it Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant. The encounter with God that I am talking about as "the Christian essential" is a call by God that results in a conversion experience and brings the individual into the body of Christ.
If the ostensible encounter with God doesn't match the model I have described in the preceding paragraph, then no, I don't believe it was a genuine encounter with God. This is true even if it was ostensibly Christian. There is a reason the Bible warns against Satan masquerading as an angel of light.
Do I believe supernatural encounters in other religions are genuine encounters with God? Not unless they are Christian conversion experiences as Muslims (for example) are reporting with increasing frequency. God can certainly call someone in another religion just as he can call an atheist.
2. The comment about someone who had a genuine encounter later losing faith misses what I said by 180 degrees. As I stated in my original post, being neck-deep in the beliefs, traditions and practices of Christianity - even to the extent of serving as a pastor - is no guarantee of anything, and certainly not of the reality of the individual's conversion experience. In Calvinistic terms, the Perseverance of the elect is assured - that's the P in TULIP. When someone who was once neck-deep in Christianity falls away, then he either never had a genuine encounter with God or will one day return to the fold, regardless of what he now thinks.
This was really the central point of my original post. The genuine encounter with God is the one true Christian essential. If you don't have that, all the rest of your ostensible Christianity is a charade.
3. You simply can't claim that a genuine encounter with God produced beliefs that are antithetical to Christianity. The source document of Christianity is the Bible. The Jesus of Christianity is the Jesus of the Gospels. The Gospel message and the core Christian doctrines have been understood by Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants for 2000 years. If your Christianity is markedly different from what Christianity has always been understood to be, then your encounter was not with God - simple as that.
As I've said elsewhere, I find it extremely telling that the direction in which unorthodox Christianities err is always - always, always, always - one that appeals to fallen human nature and robs the Gospel of its saving power. They are always - always, always, always - the sorts of superficially appealing counterfeits we might expect Satan to generate if he were hell-bent to deceive as many people as possible into unwittingly following false and ineffectual "Christianities."
Irkle my brother, Christianity is NOT defined by what our ignorant, primitive, and barbaric ancestors believed about God. It is defined by the "mind of Christ" and His demonstration of God's Holy Spirit of agape love and forgiveness on the Cross. Our ancestors were simply not equipped to recognize it and escape from their lifelong indoctrination into the War God of Moses and the Israelites.
They were not ready and were only capable of accepting "carnal milk" interpretations and descriptions of God compatible with their beliefs about God. They had no ability to comprehend or discern the "spiritual solid food" within what Jesus revealed about God. We were expected to outgrow their limitations and eventually discern the "spiritual solid food" but we failed to do so.
The teaching about righteousness and the need to love God and each other every day and repent when we fail or else face negative consequences is true. But the negative consequences are not what our ancestors needed to believe they were to be compatible with their beliefs about God.
I'm on my cellphone and trying to quote posts is difficult, but I will make these points in response to some of what has been said:
1. I am a Christian. This is the Christianity forum. I believe a genuine encounter with God is with the God of Christianity. I believe it leads to a Bible-based faith that is at least within the ballpark of the Christian mainstream, be it Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant. The encounter with God that I am talking about as "the Christian essential" is a call by God that results in a conversion experience and brings the individual into the body of Christ.
If the ostensible encounter with God doesn't match the model I have described in the preceding paragraph, then no, I don't believe it was a genuine encounter with God. This is true even if it was ostensibly Christian. There is a reason the Bible warns against Satan masquerading as an angel of light.
Do I believe supernatural encounters in other religions are genuine encounters with God? Not unless they are Christian conversion experiences as Muslims (for example) are reporting with increasing frequency. God can certainly call someone in another religion just as he can call an atheist.
2. The comment about someone who had a genuine encounter later losing faith misses what I said by 180 degrees. As I stated in my original post, being neck-deep in the beliefs, traditions and practices of Christianity - even to the extent of serving as a pastor - is no guarantee of anything, and certainly not of the reality of the individual's conversion experience. In Calvinistic terms, the Perseverance of the elect is assured - that's the P in TULIP. When someone who was once neck-deep in Christianity falls away, then he either never had a genuine encounter with God or will one day return to the fold, regardless of what he now thinks.
This was really the central point of my original post. The genuine encounter with God is the one true Christian essential. If you don't have that, all the rest of your ostensible Christianity is a charade.
3. You simply can't claim that a genuine encounter with God produced beliefs that are antithetical to Christianity. The source document of Christianity is the Bible. The Jesus of Christianity is the Jesus of the Gospels. The Gospel message and the core Christian doctrines have been understood by Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants for 2000 years. If your Christianity is markedly different from what Christianity has always been understood to be, then your encounter was not with God - simple as that.
As I've said elsewhere, I find it extremely telling that the direction in which unorthodox Christianities err is always - always, always, always - one that appeals to fallen human nature and robs the Gospel of its saving power. They are always - always, always, always - the sorts of superficially appealing counterfeits we might expect Satan to generate if he were hell-bent to deceive as many people as possible into unwittingly following false and ineffectual "Christianities."
In regards to point 2 , which seems to be the response to my post, my point was if we are going to question the legitimacy of the initial faith of church leaders simply on the basis they left the faith , what proof of their never having had proper faith can be offered to support this claim ? Just the fact that they eventually left it ? This offers no proof of the sincerity, depth, or legitimacy of their earlier belief . Claims are being made without any evidence , just the belief “ it must be so because I don’t believe you can lose proper faith”. This is just opinion, not any sort of solid reasoning. In addition, the Bible doesn’t support this idea. Believers are warned about falling away . Church leaders are counseled on how to deal with sinning Christians so that the Christians don’t get discouraged and leave the faith . There is nothing in the Bible to support this belief . It is just a personal opinion without much to support it .
Irkle my brother, Christianity is NOT defined by what our ignorant, primitive, and barbaric ancestors believed about God. It is defined by the "mind of Christ" and His demonstration of God's Holy Spirit of agape love and forgiveness on the Cross. Our ancestors were simply not equipped to recognize it and escape from their lifelong indoctrination into the War God of Moses and the Israelites.
They were not ready and were only capable of accepting "carnal milk" interpretations and descriptions of God compatible with their beliefs about God. They had no ability to comprehend or discern the "spiritual solid food" within what Jesus revealed about God. We were expected to outgrow their limitations and eventually discern the "spiritual solid food" but we failed to do so.
The teaching about righteousness and the need to love God and each other every day and repent when we fail or else face negative consequences is true. But the negative consequences are not what our ancestors needed to believe they were to be compatible with their beliefs about God.
To each his own, huh, Mystic? As if anybody on this forum has the right to declare anybody else a "non-Christian." Honestly, if that's not the most un-Christian behavior imaginable, I don't know what is. Oh, well... I guess it takes all kinds.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only one who can tell is the individual who receives the encounter! That is the only opinion that matters.
